Mr. Chairman, this fire season has put the need for real forest management in stark relief for those of us who live out West. The current laissez-faire forest policy, with random desperate measures to fight increasingly horrific fires that…
Mr. Chairman, this fire season has put the need for real forest management in stark relief for those of us who live out West.
The current laissez-faire forest policy, with random desperate measures to fight increasingly horrific fires that threaten and destroy rural and now--as we have seen in California--suburban communities is completely inadequate and increasingly costly to the taxpayer.
This bill, contrary to what some have said, rewards communities that have proactive, collaborative programs; stewardship programs; rural advisory committees; and wildfire protection plans to manage their forests without redundant NEPA processes.
A few thousand acres out of the millions acres of Federal forest land are now going to be enabled to be managed for wildlife successional forest habitat; removal of dangerous roadside and infrastructure threatening vegetation; insect and disease infestations; reducing hazardous fuel in the forests; and,
frankly, doing a little reforesting of salvage projects, which should have been allowed years ago.
We also pilot a few arbitration projects to stop the endless frivolous litigation of every single forest project, at least in Oregon, and I think elsewhere.
SRS payments continue to rural communities whose way of life has been, basically, taken away from them by the endless frivolous litigation in our Federal forests. Counties, for the first time, get some revenue from the very stewardship contracts that we want to encourage, but not at the expense of rural communities' economic health.
Many are still stuck in the recession, and this bill is critical to their revival. Oregon counties in the Oregon and California railroad areas also get the opportunity to be made whole again, like the original statute said.
I think it is important to note for a lot of our friends out there that the current regional forest plans still apply and are not undermined. We just give flexibility to the Forest Service folks within the regions to do what they think needs to be done to keep those forests healthy. We empower good management.
For those of you who are interested in innovation, this bill actually calls out cross-laminated timber and other thoughtful uses of forests and timber that can bring environmental and timber groups together like it should be in the 21st century.
Finally, most important of all for some folks, we actually get wildfire disaster funding included as a reasonable topic of conversation and get out of the current fire-borrowing policy that is preventing the Forest Service and BLM from doing good forest management to prevent those fires in the first place.
On balance, frankly, this is a very good bill and it is much-needed at this time.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my colleagues, Representatives DeFazio and Panetta, for offering this amendment with me today. I think it is one of the important changes we can make that will help improve the Resilient Federal Forests Act.
Collaborative forest management activities and categorical exclusions are an important tool in forest management and are designed to help the Forest Service and BLM speed the ability of those agencies to get into areas more quickly to improve forest health.
I believe the use of categorical exclusion should be reserved for reducing hazardous fuel loads, addressing disease and insect infestation, protecting water resources or increasing water yield, and maintaining or enhancing critical habitat. That makes sense. All these activities are very appropriate as designated activities for categorical exclusions.
Listing timber production as a designated activity, I believe, does not work in this context. Timber is a byproduct of all those activities. Therefore, it is unnecessary to actually include it as a specific designated activity.
Our amendment simply strikes timber production from the list of designated activities for categorical exclusion under section 111. It is a pretty clear-cut issue, in my book.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the chairman and Mr. Westerman for the bill and being congenial and good folks to work with for a bipartisan piece of legislation we desperately need.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.